The ObamaMedia managed to ruffle the feathers of chief White House propagandist Jay Carney over these tax increases.  Norah O’Donnell asked Carney to noddle this one out: “On that very point that it’s been the president’s position all along, in Dec. 2010, when he advocated an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the wealthiest Americans, he argued that raising taxes would be a ‘blow to our economy.’ So what’s different now from then?”  You can read and/or watch him stumble and bumble to answer that question.  The exchange goes back and forth for nearly 3 minutes.  If the man were telling the truth (which ain’t in him), he could have answered her thusly …

Nothing has changed other than the President’s impending loss of power November.  In December 2010, as you said, we were clocking along at a growth rate of about 2.3%.  Now, we are growing at a meager 1.9%.  Considering those facts, you could come to the conclusion that it wasn’t the time in 2010 to raise those taxes, and now it is REALLY not the time to raise taxes.  But the core of my bosses’ re-election campaign is wealth envy, so in order to pander to our base, we have to talk up tax increases on the very people our base despises.  Sure, it will be terrible for our economy, but at least we’ll stand a better chance of getting our guy re-elected for four more years.

So that was Dear Ruler’s current White House propagandist.  His former chief propagandist, Robert Gibbs, took to the Sunday shows to tout Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the evil rich.  He doubled down with some of my favorite phrases, “Let’s make some progress on our spending by doing away with tax cuts for people who quite frankly don’t need them, tax cuts that haven’t worked and have them pay their fair share.”

Fair share … do you think that Robert Gibbs even knows how much the evil rich pay in taxes, or do you think he knows but doesn’t care because it doesn’t advance his guy’s agenda?  I also love it when politicians or members of the media tell me how much money I do and don’t need.  Who the hell are they to decide?

And let’s stop for a moment to address this idea that the Bush tax cuts didn’t work … I assume they mean that they didn’t work at creating jobs.  Robert Gibbs just said it, and Barack Obama himself said it yesterday in his speech: “Instead of creating more jobs, we had the slowest job growth in half a century, and instead of widespread prosperity, the typical family saw its income fall.”  After both sets of the Bush tax cuts went into effect – 2001 and 2003 – America sustained the longest period of consecutive job growth in history: 52 months from August 2003 to December 2007.  During that period, 8.3 million jobs were added.  Was it the growth experienced under Bill Clinton?  No, but that period of extraordinary growth had more to do with the dot com boom.  But for Barack Obama to stand up there and belittle 52 consecutive months of growth and 8.3 million jobs seems pretty audacious if you ask me.  And then on top of all that, blaming it on tax cuts for the rich … good grief.